›

Should there be a 2 hour limit on Bond movie runtimes?

1…5678911»

Comments

  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    peter wrote: »
    According to @DEKE_RIVERS , though, @ColonelSun is that scripts are not made to be read and they’re not important….

    Er, yeah, and the Earth is flat.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    According to @DEKE_RIVERS , though, @ColonelSun is that scripts are not made to be read and they’re not important….

    Er, yeah, and the Earth is flat.

    😂 well done 😂!!
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 703
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Why are movies so long? Are they making them in the editing room?

    It all starts with the script.

    I know but.... why are the scripts so long now? are they making the movie in the editing room? Do they need more material to work with?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited February 26 Posts: 2,897
    Are scripts longer nowadays though, at least in terms of Bond films? Just a quick search of the published Bond scripts show that Dr. No's page count is 134, From Russia With Love's is 150, and GF's is 151. By comparison scripts released for more recent films include SF at 139 pages, NTTD at 145 pages, and SP at 142.

    Obviously the page count doesn't necessarily correlate to the time onscreen (I know the rule of thumb is a minute per page, but this isn't always the case), and I don't know what the average page count would be for similar films. But in terms of page count for these scripts in their released state they all seem similar. Maybe there's more story or plot in the more modern Bond films (although that's debatable - a film like FRWL is actually quite convoluted, as are many of the earlier Bond films), and the style of writing can be compared I suppose. Worth saying I've not read the older ones either.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 3 Posts: 8,087
    Bond actors films by average:

    1st film: 129 minutes
    2nd film: 119 minutes
    3rd film: 127 minutes
    4th film: 134 minutes
    5th film: 135 minutes
    6th film: 125 minutes
    7th film: 131 minutes

    Very interesting results. It appears an actor's second bond film is easily his shortest on average, perhaps because the first was a success and the producers are keen to push out a follow up quickly?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    If the next film is under 2 hrs 20 minutes I will be very pleased, as it means they have been able to rein in some of the excess of the past 2 films. Its really a shame that in order to watch a Bond film which breezes by you have to go back to the late 90's.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    If the next film is under 2 hrs 20 minutes I will be very pleased, as it means they have been able to rein in some of the excess of the past 2 films. Its really a shame that in order to watch a Bond film which breezes by you have to go back to the late 90's.

    What about QOS? It's the shortest film in the series. If that one doesn't breeze by, I don't know what does.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    If the next film is under 2 hrs 20 minutes I will be very pleased, as it means they have been able to rein in some of the excess of the past 2 films. Its really a shame that in order to watch a Bond film which breezes by you have to go back to the late 90's.

    What about QOS? It's the shortest film in the series. If that one doesn't breeze by, I don't know what does.

    Yeah, I just don't like Bond on revenge missions, where its personal and he can't keep his cool. Both QoS and LTK are in the bottom 5 bond films for that reason (mostly).
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    edited March 28 Posts: 2,056
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Why are movies so long? Are they making them in the editing room?

    It all starts with the script.

    I know but.... why are the scripts so long now? are they making the movie in the editing room? Do they need more material to work with?

    I think the issue is most blockbuster films start filming without locked in finished scripts, so they balloon as production progresses and more and more is added. SP and NTTD were in this situation and the end result for both was sub-optimal.

    As for the question at hand... Bond films are so rare nowadays that a 2hr 30 Bond film isnt a major issue for me as long as the time is used well. I'd rather have a focused 2hr film than an unfocused and baggy 2hr 30 one.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    The problem is screenwriters, for whatever reason have lost the art of subtlety in their scripts, so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking. Just look at Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, and how many times mention "trust", "betrayal" etc. 90% percentage of that dialogue could be cut, and left to the actors to portray through their performances. I suppose the other issue is hiring great actors in bit parts and wanting to get the most out of them.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The problem is screenwriters, for whatever reason have lost the art of subtlety in their scripts, so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking. Just look at Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, and how many times mention "trust", "betrayal" etc. 90% percentage of that dialogue could be cut, and left to the actors to portray through their performances. I suppose the other issue is hiring great actors in bit parts and wanting to get the most out of them.

    You forget that Bond films are for everyone, including kids. You want them to spell things out. Besides, they’ve always spelled things out. The level of subtlety you are referring to has never existed in the Bonds. People make fun of them because the villain always explains what's blatantly obvious. Q says what his gadgets do, even if we see them at work later. M, the minister and Bond discussion missions in the earlier days? Don't tell me those talks were subtle.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The problem is screenwriters, for whatever reason have lost the art of subtlety in their scripts, so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking. Just look at Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, and how many times mention "trust", "betrayal" etc. 90% percentage of that dialogue could be cut, and left to the actors to portray through their performances. I suppose the other issue is hiring great actors in bit parts and wanting to get the most out of them.

    You forget that Bond films are for everyone, including kids. You want them to spell things out. Besides, they’ve always spelled things out. The level of subtlety you are referring to has never existed in the Bonds. People make fun of them because the villain always explains what's blatantly obvious. Q says what his gadgets do, even if we see them at work later. M, the minister and Bond discussion missions in the earlier days? Don't tell me those talks were subtle.

    Was Casino Royale made for kids though? With the ball bashing?

    That's kinda my point, that this was supposedly pitching itself as a darker, more mature reinvention. I don't expect subtlety from the 70's films because they were crowdpleasing romps that never had any pretense of being subtle or layered.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The problem is screenwriters, for whatever reason have lost the art of subtlety in their scripts, so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking. Just look at Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, and how many times mention "trust", "betrayal" etc. 90% percentage of that dialogue could be cut, and left to the actors to portray through their performances. I suppose the other issue is hiring great actors in bit parts and wanting to get the most out of them.

    You forget that Bond films are for everyone, including kids. You want them to spell things out. Besides, they’ve always spelled things out. The level of subtlety you are referring to has never existed in the Bonds. People make fun of them because the villain always explains what's blatantly obvious. Q says what his gadgets do, even if we see them at work later. M, the minister and Bond discussion missions in the earlier days? Don't tell me those talks were subtle.

    Was Casino Royale made for kids though? With the ball bashing?

    That's kinda my point, that this was supposedly pitching itself as a darker, more mature reinvention. I don't expect subtlety from the 70's films because they were crowdpleasing romps that never had any pretense of being subtle or layered.

    "so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking."

    Your words.

    Plenty of teens went to see CR, and they aren't all on the level of arthouse cinema that puts subtext over text.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited April 9 Posts: 8,501
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The problem is screenwriters, for whatever reason have lost the art of subtlety in their scripts, so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking. Just look at Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, and how many times mention "trust", "betrayal" etc. 90% percentage of that dialogue could be cut, and left to the actors to portray through their performances. I suppose the other issue is hiring great actors in bit parts and wanting to get the most out of them.

    You forget that Bond films are for everyone, including kids. You want them to spell things out. Besides, they’ve always spelled things out. The level of subtlety you are referring to has never existed in the Bonds. People make fun of them because the villain always explains what's blatantly obvious. Q says what his gadgets do, even if we see them at work later. M, the minister and Bond discussion missions in the earlier days? Don't tell me those talks were subtle.

    Was Casino Royale made for kids though? With the ball bashing?

    That's kinda my point, that this was supposedly pitching itself as a darker, more mature reinvention. I don't expect subtlety from the 70's films because they were crowdpleasing romps that never had any pretense of being subtle or layered.

    Do you have kids @Mendes4Lyfe ?

    Anecdotally, all three of my kids love the Craig Era (although at one time my son despised Spectre, but NTTD— you know, that crazy title that you dare not utter, brought him back in the fold).

    They have no problem with the run time. It’s never come up as a complaint. Their friends watch these flicks. Again, no complaints.

    Kids are a little more sophisticated now…

    So, now you’ve told us what “we” want and need from Bond, and now that you have also insinuated that the ball bashing in CR may not be suitable for kids (sure, of a certain age, but I wouldn’t let any kid of a certain age watch any James Bond film, period; and today nine and over have seen worse than ball bashing on tic toc), are you going to leave your Daniel Craig obsession behind?

    You’ve got a Wright/Nolan Bond film starring ATF to run laps around,
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 703
    are the kids sophisticated or not? Do they need more dialogue or not?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The problem is screenwriters, for whatever reason have lost the art of subtlety in their scripts, so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking. Just look at Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, and how many times mention "trust", "betrayal" etc. 90% percentage of that dialogue could be cut, and left to the actors to portray through their performances. I suppose the other issue is hiring great actors in bit parts and wanting to get the most out of them.

    You forget that Bond films are for everyone, including kids. You want them to spell things out. Besides, they’ve always spelled things out. The level of subtlety you are referring to has never existed in the Bonds. People make fun of them because the villain always explains what's blatantly obvious. Q says what his gadgets do, even if we see them at work later. M, the minister and Bond discussion missions in the earlier days? Don't tell me those talks were subtle.

    Was Casino Royale made for kids though? With the ball bashing?

    That's kinda my point, that this was supposedly pitching itself as a darker, more mature reinvention. I don't expect subtlety from the 70's films because they were crowdpleasing romps that never had any pretense of being subtle or layered.

    "so what was once communicated through the actors performances, or through a single line now has pages of dialogue to hammer home to the audience what they should be thinking."

    Your words.

    Plenty of teens went to see CR, and they aren't all on the level of arthouse cinema that puts subtext over text.

    Your point was in reference to kids watching the films and being able to follow what's going on. I posit that anyone mature enough to watch the ball bashing scene is mature enough to pick up on information developed through a performance.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    There's plenty of subtext in the Craig films, but Mende loves to be hyperbolic… pages and pages of dialogue to hammer home themes is just patently false. It’s false, and these pages and pages and pages he’s talking about don’t exist.

    @DarthDimi is correct. The films ramped up the exposition in the 60s onwards and usually it was the villain explaining g his plan. Austin Powers invented Basil Exposition based not on the Craig films, but those that came long before.

    By the time Goldeneye came about, there were more explorations of themes that were done with minimal dialogue, but, and here’s the important point: more and more people are watching these films throughout the world than ever before. Scripts may repeat a few words that will also survive translations, but this is hardly Mendes’s hyperbolic “pages and pages” of dialogue. That’s just a fabrication on his part.

    And if it’s not, send me the links to these pages and pages of dialogue that discuss “trust” and “betrayal”. Pages and pages of dialogue! Show us then. Show us the pages and pages of dialogue.

    But you won’t be able to because they don’t exist @Mendes4Lyfe !!

    Jeez, moving on…

    (Just an FYI: you shouldn’t have to make up tall tales to prove your point; if you can’t prove it without fabrication, then just leave it alone)…
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    peter wrote: »
    There's plenty of subtext in the Craig films, but Mende loves to be hyperbolic… pages and pages of dialogue to hammer home themes is just patently false. It’s false, and these pages and pages and pages he’s talking about don’t exist.

    @DarthDimi is correct. The films ramped up the exposition in the 60s onwards and usually it was the villain explaining g his plan. Austin Powers invented Basil Exposition based not on the Craig films, but those that came long before.

    By the time Goldeneye came about, there were more explorations of themes that were done with minimal dialogue, but, and here’s the important point: more and more people are watching these films throughout the world than ever before. Scripts may repeat a few words that will also survive translations, but this is hardly Mendes’s hyperbolic “pages and pages” of dialogue. That’s just a fabrication on his part.

    And if it’s not, send me the links to these pages and pages of dialogue that discuss “trust” and “betrayal”. Pages and pages of dialogue! Show us then. Show us the pages and pages of dialogue.

    But you won’t be able to because they don’t exist @Mendes4Lyfe !!

    Jeez, moving on…

    (Just an FYI: you shouldn’t have to make up tall tales to prove your point; if you can’t prove it without fabrication, then just leave it alone)…

    Excellent post, @peter. I wonder what the next big "wrong" with the Craig era is going to be. What, the catering sucked because Cubby wasn't there to cook spaghetti?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    There's plenty of subtext in the Craig films, but Mende loves to be hyperbolic… pages and pages of dialogue to hammer home themes is just patently false. It’s false, and these pages and pages and pages he’s talking about don’t exist.

    @DarthDimi is correct. The films ramped up the exposition in the 60s onwards and usually it was the villain explaining g his plan. Austin Powers invented Basil Exposition based not on the Craig films, but those that came long before.

    By the time Goldeneye came about, there were more explorations of themes that were done with minimal dialogue, but, and here’s the important point: more and more people are watching these films throughout the world than ever before. Scripts may repeat a few words that will also survive translations, but this is hardly Mendes’s hyperbolic “pages and pages” of dialogue. That’s just a fabrication on his part.

    And if it’s not, send me the links to these pages and pages of dialogue that discuss “trust” and “betrayal”. Pages and pages of dialogue! Show us then. Show us the pages and pages of dialogue.

    But you won’t be able to because they don’t exist @Mendes4Lyfe !!

    Jeez, moving on…

    (Just an FYI: you shouldn’t have to make up tall tales to prove your point; if you can’t prove it without fabrication, then just leave it alone)…

    Excellent post, @peter. I wonder what the next big "wrong" with the Craig era is going to be. What, the catering sucked because Cubby wasn't there to cook spaghetti?

    😂 careful @DarthDimi !! You just gave him an idea! 😂
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 86
    Don't really see the pages and pages of needless dialogue to overexplain refers to. Most Bond films are brief, self-contained and pacy so any exposition required to introduce the new cast of characters is replaced by seamlessly quick action scenes. I don't think there's any Bond film with scenes that drag that much. 2 hours is much too stringent and beyond the first three, only Live and Let Die and Quantum of Solace are at 2 hours or below. One of which is known for being overly pacy and poorly edited. The rest seem slower than their run-time due to some sections with periods of low action that serve to build suspense.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    Don't really see the pages and pages of needless dialogue to overexplain refers to. Most Bond films are brief, self-contained and pacy so any exposition required to introduce the new cast of characters is replaced by seamlessly quick action scenes. I don't think there's any Bond film with scenes that drag that much. 2 hours is much too stringent and beyond the first three, only Live and Let Die and Quantum of Solace are at 2 hours or below. One of which is known for being overly pacy and poorly edited. The rest seem slower than their run-time due to some sections with periods of low action that serve to build suspense.

    Careful @Reflsin2bourbons , opinions laced with common sense can make someone’s head explode. He doesn’t like things that don’t fit the narratives he creates.

    Take cover, my friend.

    Take. Cover….
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    Don't really see the pages and pages of needless dialogue to overexplain refers to. Most Bond films are brief, self-contained and pacy so any exposition required to introduce the new cast of characters is replaced by seamlessly quick action scenes. I don't think there's any Bond film with scenes that drag that much. 2 hours is much too stringent and beyond the first three, only Live and Let Die and Quantum of Solace are at 2 hours or below. One of which is known for being overly pacy and poorly edited. The rest seem slower than their run-time due to some sections with periods of low action that serve to build suspense.

    @Reflsin2bourbons, I completely agree. I don't get why we should ration minutes like toilet paper during a lockdown. If an awesome Bond film needs 150 minutes to tell its story and to get all the cool scenes in, why should we complain? If a 90-minute film is an empty bag of nothing, why would I still give it the compliment of coming in below two hours? A good Bond film, whether long or short, is a good Bond film.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 86
    To me this is like asking: "Should every continuation novel have a 250 page limit?" Nobody cares. The only thing that matters is the quality of the story
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    To me this is like asking: "Should every continuation novel have a 250 page limit?" Nobody cares. The only thing that matters is the quality of the story

    💯… although some people do make an issue out of the length of a film when they can shoe-horn it back to how much they dislike a Bond actor and “Babs”…
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    In addition to all that, I'd like to point out that there have always been long and short films. For every Dr. Caligari, you get a Metropolis. For every Steamboat Bill, Jr., you get a Hell's Angels. For every From Russia With Love, you get a 4-hour Cleopatra. Today, I watched Walter Hill's The Driver, a 90-minute film from 1978. That same year, Superman spent 140 minutes on screen, The Deer Hunter over three hours!

    It's not as if "long" movies didn't happen in our strongly idealized past. OHMSS ran for 140 minutes... because that's the number of minutes Hunt and the others needed to tell their story.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    peter wrote: »
    There's plenty of subtext in the Craig films, but Mende loves to be hyperbolic… pages and pages of dialogue to hammer home themes is just patently false. It’s false, and these pages and pages and pages he’s talking about don’t exist.

    @DarthDimi is correct. The films ramped up the exposition in the 60s onwards and usually it was the villain explaining g his plan. Austin Powers invented Basil Exposition based not on the Craig films, but those that came long before.

    By the time Goldeneye came about, there were more explorations of themes that were done with minimal dialogue, but, and here’s the important point: more and more people are watching these films throughout the world than ever before. Scripts may repeat a few words that will also survive translations, but this is hardly Mendes’s hyperbolic “pages and pages” of dialogue. That’s just a fabrication on his part.

    And if it’s not, send me the links to these pages and pages of dialogue that discuss “trust” and “betrayal”. Pages and pages of dialogue! Show us then. Show us the pages and pages of dialogue.

    But you won’t be able to because they don’t exist @Mendes4Lyfe !!

    Jeez, moving on…

    (Just an FYI: you shouldn’t have to make up tall tales to prove your point; if you can’t prove it without fabrication, then just leave it alone)…

    P.S. @Mendes4Lyfe have you found these pages and pages of exposition repeating “trust” and “betrayal “? I mean you said they exist and I’m assuming “pages and pages” from these films would be a simple find, so…. I’m guessing I shouldn’t hold my breath, eh?
Sign In or Register to comment.